The payment or promise of anything valuable to induce another, while under obligation of acting without additional emolument, to act as the briber prescribes. It ordinarily refers to influencing those bound by office to act for the common good. Bribery in any form, legislative, executive, or judicial, is immoral. Its tendency is to pervert justice at its source. The guilt rests upon both briber and bribed and all active agents, and varies with circumstances. <\/p>\n
The payment or the promise of money or other lucrative consideration to induce another, while under the obligation of acting without any view to private emolument, to act as the briber shall prescribe. Only the moral aspect of bribery will be touched upon here; the historical aspect of the question will be dealt with in the articles on the nations and countries.<\/p>\n
The word is ordinarily used with reference to payments or other lucrative consideration illicitly made in favor of persons whose duty to the commonwealth binds them to act for the common good. Thus judges are bound, as servants of the commonwealth, to administer justice without fear or favor, and they are forbidden to take bribes from litigants or others. Similarly, regard for the public good should be the motive which influences those who appoint to public offices, or who have the placing of contracts for public works or institutions, or who are entrusted with the execution of the laws, or who elect representatives to seats in the legislature. They should appoint only worthy candidates who will serve the public well. If they neglect the common good, and seek private advantage from the exercise of the trust committed to them, they violate their duty to the commonwealth, and they make themselves accomplices in all the evil that results from the incompetence or the roguery of those whom they elect. The general principle is obvious enough, but in the matter of details difficulties are encountered which cannot all be solved in the same way. An elector may say that as a rule there is very little to choose between the candidates for some public position or office, and that even if there were a difference in their moral character and capacity to serve the public, it is difficult for the ordinary voter to detect it. Why should he not make a little money by promising to vote for the candidate who is ready to pay the highest price?<\/p>\n
It may be that in this hypothesis no injustice is done by taking a bribe and that there is no obligation incurred of making restitution. Still the action is immoral, and rightly forbidden by law. A person who has a vote in the appointment to offices or in the election of representatives is under a serious responsibility to use his power to the best of his ability. If he takes a bribe he renders himself practically incapable of exercising a discriminating judgment. He is bound to do what he can to make sure that the person for whom he votes is worthy of the post; but if he takes a bribe this blinds him, blunts his judgment, and makes him incapable of doing his duty. Besides, in questions of this kind, we must look at the general result of the action whose moral quality we are studying; the general result of the willingness of voters to sell their vote for money is that power and office are put in the hands of that portion of the moneyed class which is least worthy and most selfish.<\/p>\n
Those who hold public offices to which patronage or power of any sort is attached are specially bound to use their power for the common good. They accepted office under the express or tacit condition that they would use their influence for the public benefit, not merely for their private emolument. If they sell the posts, offices or favors of any kind, in their gift, for money or any lucrative consideration, they violate the express or tacit pledge that they gave on their assumption of office. There is more malice in such actions than in that of the venal elector who sells his vote for money. They also produce more direct and more immediate evils in the commonwealth. A man who has bought an office, or a post, or a contract for money will as a rule try to recoup himself at the expense of the public. It is not likely that he will be an honorable or even an honest servant, and the disastrous consequences of his appointment begin to show themselves at once. The evils are perhaps less, but they do not cease, if offices or favors are bestowed in consideration of money contributed to the funds of the political party. Power, influence and even an external respectability are sometimes given to unscrupulous men whose only recommendation is the possession of wealth.<\/p>\n
Moralists have devoted special attention to the question of bribery in connection with the administration of justice. The judge on his assumption of office undertakes to administer justice to all who come before him, and in most countries binds himself by a special oath to do his duty. He receives a salary for his services. If he accepts bribes from suitors or criminals he makes himself practically incapable of exercising an unbiased judgment, fails in the execution of his duty, and violates his oath. If he takes money for giving a sentence that is just, he commits a sin against justice and is bound to restore the bribe to him who gave it. For the judge is bound in justice to pronounce a just sentence apart from the bribe, and his action affords him no title to take payment for what is due in justice without payment. If he takes a bribe for giving a sentence that is unjust, he will of course sin against justice on account of the sentence, and will be bound to make reparation to the injured party for the wrong that he has suffered. Some moralists, however, refuse to impose on him the obligation of restoring the bribe, on the ground that something was given for it which indeed the judge had no right to give, but which, for all that, was worth the money to him who paid the bribe. The same principles are applicable to jurymen, arbitrators and referees, who have obligations similar to those of judges. Bribery under all the above aspects is in most countries forbidden by positive law and punished by severe penalties.<\/p>\n
———————————–<\/p>\n
LUGO, De justitiâ et jure (Paris 1869), disp. xxxiv, disp. xxxvii, n. 123f., LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1898), I, 809, 810. <\/p>\n
T. SLATER Transcribed by the Cloistered Dominican Nuns of the Monastery of the Infant Jesus, Lufkin, Texas Dedicated to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. <\/p>\n
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York<\/p>\n
It may be a question whether the qualification required of bishops and deacons by the Pastoral Epistles, that they should not be given to filthy lucre” (1Ti 3:3; 1Ti 3:8; Tit 1:7), implies proneness to bribery, properly so called, or covetousness generally. If, however, we reckon the Apostolical Constitutions as representing generally the Church life of the 2d century, we see that the offence was then beginning to take shape. The bishop is directed not to be open to receive gifts, since unconscientious men, “becoming acceptors of Persons, and having received shameful gifts,” will spare the sinner, letting him remain in the Church. In two other passages there are even more marked recgonitions of such offenes.<\/p>\n
In the Roman law there were numerous enactments against bribery. Theodosius enacted the penalty of death against all judges who took bribes. In Justinian’s time, although the penalty of death seems to have been abrogated, the offence is subjected to degrading punishments.<\/p>\n
The law of the Church on the subject of bribery was substantially that of the State. The spiritual sin was looked upon as equivalent to the civil offence, and the Church needed no special discipline to punish the former. One form of bribery, indeed, relating to the obtainment of the orders or dignities of the Church, is considered separately under the head of SIMONY SEE SIMONY (q.v.). <\/p>\n
BRIBERY.See Crimes and Punishments, 5.<\/p>\n
brber-i (, shohadh, a gift, in a corrupt sense, a bribe): The Hebrew law condemns everything that would tend to impair the impartial administration of justice, particularly the giving and receiving of gifts or bribes, in order to pervert judgment (Exo 23:8). Allusions are frequent to the prevailing corruption of oriental judges and rulers. And fire shall consume the tents of bribery (Job 15:34; 1Sa 8:3; Psa 26:10; Isa 1:23; Isa 33:15; Eze 22:12). Samuel speaks of a ransom in the sense of a bribe: Of whose hand have I taken a ransom (, kopher, covering, the King James Version bribe) to blind mine eyes therewith? (1Sa 12:3; Amo 5:12; compare Amo 2:6). See CRIMES; JUSTICE; PUNISHMENTS.<\/p>\n
General references<\/p>\n
Exo 23:8<\/span>; Deu 16:18-19<\/span>; Deu 27:25<\/span>; 1Sa 8:1<\/span>; 1Sa 8:3<\/span>; Job 15:34<\/span>; Psa 26:9-10<\/span>; Pro 15:27<\/span>; Pro 17:8<\/span>; Pro 17:23<\/span>; Pro 18:16<\/span>; Pro 21:14<\/span>; Pro 25:14<\/span>; Pro 28:21<\/span>; Pro 29:4<\/span>; Ecc 7:7<\/span>; Isa 1:23<\/span>; Isa 5:22-23<\/span>; Isa 33:15-16<\/span>; Eze 13:19<\/span>; Eze 22:12-13<\/span>; Amo 2:6<\/span>; Amo 5:12<\/span>; Mic 7:3<\/span> <\/p>\n \n Instances of:<\/p>\n \n – <\/strong>Delilah<\/p>\n Jdg 16:5<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Samuel’s sons<\/p>\n 1Sa 8:3<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>The false prophet, Shemaiah<\/p>\n Neh 6:10-13<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Ben-Hadad<\/p>\n 1Ki 15:19<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Haman bribes Ahasuerus to destroy the Jews<\/p>\n Est 3:9<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Chief priests bribe Judas<\/p>\n Mat 26:15<\/span>; Mat 27:3-9<\/span>; Mar 14:11<\/span>; Luk 22:5<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Soldiers bribed to declare that the disciples stole the body of Jesus<\/p>\n Mat 28:12-15<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Felix seeks a bribe from Paul<\/p>\n Act 24:26<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n bribery The payment or promise of anything valuable to induce another, while under obligation of acting without additional emolument, to act as the briber prescribes. It ordinarily refers to influencing those bound by office to act for the common good. Bribery in any form, legislative, executive, or judicial, is immoral. Its tendency is to pervert … Continue reading “Bribery”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-encyclopedic-dictionary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"